by BOMBTHROWER via zerohedge.com
The systemic banking and financial crisis I’ve been warning about for years has arrived. (In fact, the report I put out in January seems to be playing out in spades).
The printing of 37 trillion dollars out of thin air over the pandemic widened the wealth inequality gap – and they followed that up with the most drastic and rapid interest rate hiking cycle in Fed history.
What did they think was going to happen?
Now the banks are failing – Silicon Valley Bank went from passing its KPMG audit with flying colours and getting their debt rated “A” by Moody’s mere weeks ago, to the executives frantically paying themselves bonuses and selling their shares in the hours and days before the bank failed and was taken over by the FDIC.
98% of the deposits in SVB were uninsured, meaning that those deposits wouldn’t shouldn’t have been covered by FDIC insurance. That means any accounts with balances above $250K were facing the loss of their funds.
But this is Silicon Valley Bank – this is where the elites place their bets on Silicon Valley unicorns. So we can’t have that.
In a hastily convened meeting between the FDIC, the Fed and the US Treasury, it was decided that all deposits would be covered, insured or not.
Crisis averted, right?
Wrong. It turns out that only SVB and Signature banks would be covered; if any other banks fail, like your bank, your community co-op in your hometown or state, or any other bank in flyover America far away from the Coastal elites – if they get into trouble (because people are moving their money into “protected” banks), then that’s not covered.
That’s tough titties for you.
In a stunning admission, when asked point blank by Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) whether a community bank in his home state of Oklahoma would have uninsured depositors made whole the same way the Silicon Valley Unicorns did, Yellen had to come clean:
“A bank only gets that treatment if a super-majority of the Fed board, and I, in consultation with the President conclude that failure to protect uninsured depositors would create systemic risk to the banking system”
In short “not necessarily”.